Santosh Parshuram Kedare Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
The assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) as not maintainable under section 249(4)(b) since no return was filed and no advance tax was paid. The ITAT upheld that this technical dismissal was legally correct, as the statutory condition for filing an appeal was not satisfied.
However, the Tribunal noted a crucial development:
- The entire addition of ₹32.29 lakh (commission income) was based solely on Form 26AS / third-party information
- Subsequent evidence showed that the deductor (Manba Finance Ltd.) corrected the TDS return, removing the income and TDS entry from the assessee’s PAN
- Thus, the very basis of addition no longer survived
Balancing technical compliance with substantive justice, the ITAT held that:
- Procedural lapse (249(4)(b)) cannot override truth of facts
- Addition based purely on incorrect third-party data cannot stand
Accordingly, the Tribunal:
- Set aside the CIT(A) order
- Restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication
- Directed verification of revised Form 26AS and confirmations
The appeal was thus allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing that substantive justice prevails over technical defects when foundational facts collapse
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”]dated 06.11.2025, arising out of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Act dated 03.03.2025 for the Assessment Year 2020–21.
